Ted Grant

Perspectives for Britain [1968]

Editor’s
note: This article was
written in October 1968, for the forerunner of Militant
International Review. We are republishing it
here in its original form because we believe that it retains its
relevance as an analysis in Marxist terms of the long-term crisis of
British capitalism, its effects on class relations, and the
developments in the labour movement.

One of the
most striking features of the last epoch since the Second World War
has been the steady attrition of the power of British capitalism on a
world scale. Year by year in relation to its mighty competitors,
American imperialism and the mighty Russian bureaucracy, it has been
outdistanced. Even in relation to its lesser rivals, France, Germany,
Japan and Italy, its power has drastically declined. In every field
the distance between the former might of the unchallenged world power
and its present impotence and decay has been emphasised.

Only
very reluctantly has British capitalism been induced to accept a
lesser role. The bankruptcy of the power of British capitalism has
been partly due to the terrible miscalculation of trying to keep up
in the first division (militarily) with American imperialism and
Russia instead of accepting relegation to that of a secondary
national power. The consequence has been a series of defeats which
has now extended over many decades. However, British imperialism was
the first imperialist power to understand the impossibility of
maintaining direct control over the Empire. Both under Tory and
Labour governments step by step they retreated to indirect and
economic means to try to maintain their former domination. Meanwhile,
in spite of the sad recognition of her changed role, arms expenditure
has still continued to rise even if more slowly than in the past.
This expenditure remains as a dead weight on the British economy.

The
Wilson government, perhaps even more than the Tory governments of the
past, has remained in the hands of the permanent officials of the
Foreign Office, of the Treasury and of other departments. The
reluctant abandonment of the role of British imperialism East of Suez
and in the Persian Gulf has been forced by the chronic crisis of
British capitalism.

Wilson
and the other Labour leaders have been compelled to swallow their
fiery pre-1964 and post-election announcements. Heath and the other
leaders are appealing to the jingo elements in the country and
demanding the protection of the massive British investments in South
East Asia and the Persian Gulf by continuing to maintain the bases in
the area. In practice, even if they were in power they would be
compelled to act in the same way as Wilson. The economic facts of
life and the narrow shoulders of British imperialism are incapable of
bearing the heavy burden of the military bases and of naval power in
these areas. The decline can be graphically expressed not only in
economic terms but in the collapse of British imperialism’s naval
supremacy. For three centuries Britannia ruled the waves. Now her
navy is only third in the list of world powers, that of America and
that of Russia being twice as great. Britain’s invulnerability as a
sea power has long been ended. Before the First World War British
imperialism’s navy was equal to that of the next three naval powers
together; the military race with Germany began when Germany attempted
to challenge this supremacy and ended with the First World War.

After
the First World War at the Conference of 1920, Britain had to accept
parity with America and a 5.5.3. ratio with Japan. This in reality
meant the supremacy of America. Now since the Second World War
Britain’s navy has become second rate and can in no way challenge
the mighty navies of Russia and America which have far outdistanced
her. As Marxists have always explained, military and naval power is
dependent on economic power. The vain endeavour to try and maintain
the reverse has ended ignominiously for British capitalism.

Britain’s
decline

In
whatever direction British capitalism turns she finds herself
thwarted, because of her weakness. From an imperial power she turned
towards Europe once the relative success of the Common Market became
apparent only to be contemptuously spurned by her former
semi-satellite, France. The British diplomats have succeeded in
getting the worst of all worlds. In politics there is no gratitude,
and underlying all the failures has been the slow if relative decline
of British capitalism in relation to her former rivals and allies.

The
attempts of the Labour leaders at the dictates of the City of London
to maintain the value of the pound in
relation to other currencies was determined not only by economic
factors but also by considerations of prestige and power
internationally. In the pursuit of this will-o’-the-wisp, under the
guidance of the “experts” the state threatened to bankrupt itself
and the measures of the government resulted in economic standstill
over a period of years; this at the expense of the living standards
of the people. It further weakened British capitalism economically in
comparison with other powers and still did not prevent the second
devaluation of the pound since the Second World War. On each occasion
it has been the Labour government that has had to do the dirty work
of British capitalism and incur the odium from the lower middle class
and those sections of the population who invested small sums in
“savings”.

Even
in relation to the sterling bloc, which in part has endured since the
30s and was a weapon which British capitalism has used since the
Second World War as a means of safeguarding her markets in India and
Africa, the position is changing. In order to prevent a new run on
sterling and a new devaluation where not British capitalism but
outside “speculators” can call the tune, British capitalism has
been forced to borrow yet another loan from international capital,
and to attenuate the role of sterling as a reserve currency. This in
its turn means a defeat for the policies of the City of London and a
loss of the financial pre-eminence which Britain has maintained for
centuries. The endeavour to hold on to all these different spheres of
power has further aggravated the long-drawn [out] crisis of British
capitalism and the relative decay of British industry. The latter,
which was the basis of the former pro-eminence in all fields of
British imperial grandeur, was too weak to stand the strain. And on
the contrary, whereas in the past there had been an interaction of
these factors to the benefit of British industry, now the burdens
were too great and, therefore, as in a “power failure” the
British industrialists had to shed the load. Thus part of the
function of the sterling bloc and of the sterling balances in the
event of a new run on the pound will be shared by foreign banks and
foreign currencies.

Fusion of the
monopolies with the state

In
the past period, more than even under the Tories in the past, the
government and the state have degenerated into a pliant tool of
finance and industrial capital. The fusion of state monopoly capital
and finance capital with the state is a process which unfolds
steadily. The monopolies are linked with the state and the state
promotes monopoly for the purpose of “efficiency” and competition
abroad. This has not prevented the monopolies from becoming ever more
parasitic and leaning on the state for the finance needed for
necessary industrialisation. In their “mid-term Manifesto” the
Labour leaders wag the finger of admonition at finance-industrial
capital—in the politest terms possible of course—but demonstrate
the complete parasitism of finance capital by pointing out that the
super monopolies which in fact dominate the economy do not fulfil the
function of taking “risks” which was fulfilled by capital in the
past. The state provides the money for modernisation, the monopolies
take the profits. Where there is a loss, that is the state’s
business. Both the Tory and the Labour leaders express the
interdependence of the monopolies with the state far more than in the
past. The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation acts as a forcing
house for the development of the monopolies. This is in contrast to
the position of the arch-reformist Gaitskell as outlined in Challenge
to Britain where the development of monopoly
was seen as a threat to the very existence of democracy. Now the
state acts as broker for mergers, as in the case of GEC-AEI and the
new merger with English Electric. If there was a veto on the merger
of what amounts to the big four banks into the big two, that was
because this would be tempting a target for nationalisation. But in
practice, the co-operation of the big four, formerly the big five,
and soon to be the big three, with the Bank of England, makes them in
practice into a virtual monopoly in any case. The business heads of
these banks, from a purely “business” point of view of
“efficiency and elimination of waste” saw the logical conclusion
in a reduction of the banks—and their staff—into one or two
streamlined organisations. Although baulking at the bank mergers, the
government has not shrunk from the massive mergers such as that
referred to above which have increased and consolidated British
capitalism into the most monopolised country in the capitalist world.

The
monopolies have used the nationalisation of the basic industries in
their own interests. On the boards of nationalised industries sit
generals, industrialists and other members and servants faithful to
the interests of their class. The re-nationalisation of steel has
been revealed as a colossal rescue operation for capitalism in its
most inefficient and profiteering form. Against the first
nationalisation there was a measure of resistance from the capitalist
class, because they saw this as the last step, before a move into the
lush pastures of engineering or chemicals and other profitable
industries. But a second nationalisation was conceived as a lovely
ramp for the owners and stockholders of the steel industry. Having
taken over for a song the new plants erected with government money
they proceeded to run the industry down from a technical point of
view, to the detriment of their fellow industrialists. Now the state
undertakes a rescue operation by over-compensation to those sections
of the steel industry which will not pay and which require huge sums
for modernisation in order to compete with the steel industries of
Japan and America. The most profitable 10 percent remains in the
hands of big business. At the same time the Tories have announced
that after the resuscitation of the industry they will again hand it
in good order—at knock-down prices of course—to private
enterprise together with any tit-bits from road transport which
remain under state control, which show any signs of profitability.

The
government remains the biggest customer, investor, and employer in
the country. At the moment 50 percent of all investment in industry
comes from the government sector which now constitutes only about 16
percent of the economy. The more than 90 percent of productive
manufacturing industry, including steel, in the hands of private
capital, together with the dependent service industries, only succeed
in investing the other half of the total. Such is the parasitism and
loss of function of the so-called entrepreneurs.

Subsidies
to industry under the Labour government have reached fantastic
levels, if to this is added the grants, taxation and depreciation
allowances. The expense of industry to the state has reached record
levels. All the cherished shibboleths of reformism have been turned
into their opposite. Now the magic Chancellor, Jenkins, as always in
these cases reneging on his Fabian articles of faith, is preparing to
switch from direct to indirect taxation. This will be a further blow
at the poorer sections of the population. Step by step, under
pressure of economic realities, facing the alternative of action
against the monopolies or capitulation to them, they have “movingly”
and as “realists and practical men” accepted the latter
alternative.

Devaluation

One
of the main causes of the weakened position of British capitalism was
the inflation caused by the delusion that military expenditure
(without reference to the economic base) could maintain the power,
income, and prestige of the ruling class. In fact it has been one of
the main causes of the fall in the purchasing power of the British
currency. At the same time, devaluation has been the cause of
inflation to the detriment of the real standards of living of the
working class, especially of the most exploited and underpaid
sections.

Devaluation
marked an attempt on the part of the ruling class to reconcile
themselves with the real relationship of forces on a world scale.
This was in order to prepare for an attempted recovery, not as a
first rate power, but as an equal amongst second rate powers. The
world capitalist powers had to agree to a restoration of a semblance
of competitiveness of the British economy by a devaluation of almost
15 percent. They did so for fear of the long-term consequences and
because of an expanding world market in the post-war epoch. They
could afford to do so; whereas the collapse of the British economy
would have detonated a chain reaction and the common ruin of all.

Undoubtedly,
there has been a certain recovery in exports in the latter part of
the year (1968) and the devaluation has led to an increase of
industrial production which will probably be in the region of 4 to 5
percent. This will be among the best results that British capitalism
has attained since the war. The British share of the world market had
dropped to less than 10 percent but it is likely to increase a little
in the next period. This depends upon the extent of the recovery of
world markets.

Recovery
on the home market has, in 1968, led in the immediate period to an
increase in imports, but the expansion of the home market will in its
turn with the added protection of 15 percent lead to a growth of home
industry, by increasing its competitiveness on the home market. It
should be repeated here that one of the reasons for the endemic
crisis of British capitalism lies in the massive import of
manufactured goods which defeat British capitalism even in the home
market, in spite of having, next to America, the highest tariffs in
the world. From a position of continuing imbalance between imports
and exports, Jenkins calculates that exports in 1969 will increase to
such an extent that it will give a favourable balance of trade of up
to £600 million.

It
is not impossible that this forecast will be realised. However, this
will depend upon the expansion of world trade, and, of course, this
is dependent on political as well as economic factors. The situation
in South East Asia, where a continuation of the Vietnam War would put
the dollar in jeopardy and threaten to bring on a new financial
crisis, is of course one of the factors in the situation. British
capitalism is far less in control of world factors than at any other
time in history.

A
new movement of the workers in France would precipitate a devaluation
of the franc and in a chain reaction bring down the dollar and the
pound with it. This in its turn could produce big movements of the
working class which would have economic effects. But as things stand
at the moment it would seem that the likely course of events would be
in the direction of a continuation of the present upswing on a world
and national scale. One of the outstanding features of the post-war
period has been the continuation of the enormous export of capital.
This has drained British industry by the same monopolies which
dominate the economy on a national scale.

This
year, contemptuously brushing aside the government restrictions on
the export of capital, it is reaching record levels. In the post-war
period, having dissipated a great part of the resources invested
overseas, they have now been built up to over £15,000 million,
which, even taking into account the depreciation of money, amounts to
a record level, apart from America the highest in the world. This is
one of the factors that at one and the same time extends the economic
power of the monopolies and aggravates the crisis at home.

The
parasitism of the monopolies is now complete. In exports, in
subsidies, in investment, in capital exports, they are inextricably
intertwined with the state and the economy as a whole. The 300
monopolies with interlocking directorships with the banks and
insurance giants have a greater grip over the economy than finance
capital has ever possessed in the past. Within the space of less than
a decade they have dwindled from over 600 to less than 300. This
interlocking giant with tentacles like an octopus spreads into every
facet of national life. They now lay themselves open as a tempting
target for nationalisation. The demand for the taking over of the
commanding heights thus assumes concrete shape.

Wilson
and the government have more and more become the mouthpiece of
“efficient”, of large-scale organisation of industry, and thus
inevitably of big business. Wilson’s method has been that of
changing the name of things in order to cover up the fact that there
has been no change in policy.

The
capitalists and the Labour government

In
reality, the policies of the Labour government, like those of the
Tory government before it, have been dictated by “the needs of the
economy”. But the economy is a monopoly-ridden capitalist one, and
therefore any policy is in reality dictated by the needs of big
business. Either there has to be a complete break with the policy of
supporting big business and taking to the road of Marxist socialist
policies or the road that has been taken by the Labour leaders, that
of capitulation to finance capital. There can be no middle road.

The
“mistakes” of the Wilson government have been the mistakes of the
“experts”, of the capitalist economists and of the professional
advisers in the Civil Service, i.e. of the state machine. The
bankruptcy of the policies of reformism, of an “independent road”
(i.e. independent of the class struggle), with the “government”
laying down the law to the classes, who must collaborate for the
benefit of all, have demonstrated their futility.

Wilson
tried to play the role of a “national” leader and in doing so had
to separate himself from the working class and put himself on the
standpoint of the bourgeoisie. Class attitudes in a class society are
inevitable, and thus Wilson, with the policies mentioned above, in
the early period secured the adulation of the capitalist press and
the admiration of big business. The continued ailing of the British
economy and the crisis of British capitalist power, forcibly revealed
by the move towards devaluation, devalued Wilson in the eyes of the
bourgeoisie.

From
adulation, the press passed to hysteria in their denunciation of
Wilson’s mistakes. In spite of the attacks on working class
standards and the lavish concessions to the capitalist class, they
tried to make Wilson a scapegoat for the disease of the system
itself. At that stage they were oven toying with the idea of a
National government, and even the forced resignation of Wilson, to
bring forward as prime minister an even more right-wing figure such
as Callaghan or Jenkins. For a whole period up to the Labour Party
conference of 1968, a systematic campaign has been conducted to
unseat Wilson. While the suggestion of a National government has been
kept in reserve, at the same time the attempt was made to switch
prime ministers. This failed because it would have meant a split in
the Parliamentary Labour Party and the premature formation of a
“national” government and the driving of the labour movement to
the left.

Events
at the TUC and the Labour Party conferences have forced the spokesmen
of big business to make a re-assessment of the situation. The TUC and
Labour Party conferences, have been forced into opposition or
semi-opposition to the policies of the Labour government. The defeat
of the government’s prices and incomes policy, both at the TUC and,
by an overwhelming majority of the unions and
the constituency parties at the LP conference, are symptomatic of the
situation that is developing. 1969 will see the biggest upsurge of
industrial struggles, official and unofficial, involving a wide
cross-section of the organised working class, since the war.
Engineering, docks, transport workers, clerks, draughtsmen, building
workers have all been involved in industrial struggle.

The
question of equal pay for women has also for the first time in
decades assumed a burning actuality. The strike of the women workers
at Ford’s has triggered off a whole series of strikes.

A swing to
the left

There
has been the beginning of a swing to the left in the union branches
and constituency Labour parties. This mood was reflected at the TUC
and Labour Party conferences, which showed a questioning and critical
mood developing among the organised and active advanced sections of
the labour movement. At the present time this is only a mood and not
an active and swelling movement. Hence the fact that it has not
received any real organised expression.

However,
it is again necessary to stress that this is the
beginning of the beginning of the beginning.
The spokesmen and representatives of the ruling class recognise this
process clearly and it could be seen once again in the changed
attitude to Wilson in particular, and the right wing leaders in
general. Thus a new revamping of the role of Wilson has taken place
in the press. They have accepted that while the Labour government
last, Wilson will necessarily remain as its leader. They do not wish
to open the flood-gates to the militancy and embitterment of the
working class by provoking conspiracies against Wilson. With the
developing mood of political and industrial militancy, the labour
leaders need especially a former “man of the left”. Wilson would
be better for the job than a National government or the Tories.

The
strategists of big business have to calculate whether it may not even
be better if the economic situation continues to improve in 1969-70
to have a new Labour government rather than a Conservative one. A
Wilson-Jenkins “miracle” in the economic field, with secondary
concessions to the working class, would, under these conditions, be
better than a Tory government faced with a radicalised and united and
embattled working class. Thus they are preparing to refurbish the
image of Wilson as a national leader. If the economy should continue
to ascend, they would prefer a Labour government to hold down the
developing industrial militancy of the organised workers.

The
Labour government, without a real economic slump as in 1929-31, is as
yet not “exposed” to the organised masses in the labour
movement—not even completely to the active sections. It depends on
the events of the next 18 months to 2 years for the bourgeoisie, or
rather its strategists, to decide on their tactics. What is clear is
that they prefer to be “kind” to the leaders of the Labour
government, through the mass media, thus showing that for the period
of the life of the Labour government, they have accepted Wilson as
the best Labour leader they have got.

It
has always been necessary to understand the limitations of
conferences, whose decisions are distorted by a measure of selected
and slanted publicity given to its decisions. The broad masses and
the active workers in the constituencies, the housewives and working
people, have not got the time to follow in detail the processes and
decisions of conference. Even the delegates at the conference are not
completely clear as to the processes taking place.

Nevertheless,
with all these limitations, the 3 million votes cast for the
resolution from Liverpool of the Marxist left at the 1968 Conference,
represents a modest success for the methods of Marxism, which has
always tried uncompromisingly to put forward the issues in a clear
fashion in the trade union branches, the CLPs, in the factories and
among the youth.

One
resolution, however, does not make a tendency, and while,
undoubtedly, both within the trade union delegations and within the
CLP delegations, there was a profound disquiet and uneasiness among
the delegates, reflecting similar processes in the masses, there was
not a sure and certain left current of thought. The basic impression
left by the conference was that of confusion in the minds of the
delegates as to where they were going. On the one hand, they know
what they do not want—the policies of the present administration;
and they vaguely desire socialist policies. But what to do is not yet
clear to them.

Yet
in many areas discontent is already beginning to be expressed. Many
rank-and-filers in the CLPs and the trade union branches are looking
for a way forward. Here and there even ultra-left ideas will be
expressed as a gesture of despair. All these are portents of the
coming developments in the movement. The so-called “lefts” are
completely blind, and incapable of giving an impetus to the movement.
On the contrary, their programme is the backward looking one of going
“forward” to the ineffective programme of Wilson of 1964. Their
criticism of the leadership is that they did not carry out this
programme. Apart from the purely reformist character of the
programme, it was sheer utopianism to expect that in the situation of
British capitalism they could implement it. Wilson and the other
leaders did not abandon the programme out of wickedness, but because
the programme was utopian under present day conditions.

What
was instructive, and a portent for the future, was the way in which a
short but clear statement of a principled programme secured the
massive support of the delegates, including even the trade union
delegations—which showed the pressures seeping up through the
ranks. This must have been somewhat of a shock to the purveyors of
timid, muddled and watered-down resolutions among the so-called
“lefts”.

Future storms

Nevertheless,
this must be taken in the context of the general level of
consciousness of the working class and even of the active sections of
the organised movement itself.

Great
events, it is necessary to repeat, and the experience of mass
movements, are still necessary to educate the masses. There will have
to be many great experiences—even for the gathering together of a
left reformist or centrist current, in which the ideas of Marxism
will gather mass support.

In
the event of a new economic crisis—which is dependent on world
developments—the attempt to impose new and harsh measures against
the working class will provoke deep resentment and a tide of
revolt—which will have broad echoes in the Parliamentary Labour
Party, especially in the trade union wing. This in its turn would
inevitably raise the question of a National government. We have had a
dress rehearsal of a “mild” nature in the baying of the mass
media against the government at the time of devaluation. Any serious
national or international crisis will provoke a split in the
Parliamentary Party, and the going over of the right wing openly to
the Tories. It should be remembered that the last National government
was formed more than a quarter of a century ago, and has not the same
connotations in the minds of the new generation as of the old. But it
should be stressed that a National government would only be a reserve
weapon to be played reluctantly by the ruling class, when other means
have failed. Temporarily, it could inflict a crushing electoral
defeat on the Labour Party; but it would undoubtedly push the labour
movement—and, in words, the top leaders of the trade unions and
Labour Party—far to the left.

If
the economic situation improves in the immediate period ahead—and
despite the pessimism of the industrialists (interested, of course,
only in profit) this seems the most likely course of events, then the
possibility of a further period of office of a labour government
cannot be excluded.

The
bourgeoisie is weighing up the mood of the workers, the strength of
the labour movement, and the prospects after 1970. A Conservative
government facing the forces of the trade union movement,
psychologically intact and moving to the left, would face great
difficulties on the industrial field. Defeated on the political
plane, as the workers would see it, by the renegacy of their leaders,
they would turn to the industrial field. And whereas the Labour
government has succeeded in achieving greater results in holding the
workers in check, and at the same time has given enormous concessions
to the ruling class, it is not certain that the Conservatives could
have a like success facing the forces of the workers virtually
intact. Under such conditions a Conservative government would face an
entirely different situation than after 1951 and could only impose
their solutions at the cost of a heightening of class tension, and of
the class struggle splitting the “nation” openly into hostile
camps. Of course, the bourgeoisie are also waiting on events to
decide their tactics. For the moment they are extending to the Labour
leaders a favourable image in the mass media.

A
new Labour government would come to power with an entirely different
attitude on the part of the workers than did the Labour government of
1966. The attitude of the advanced sections of the movement, of the
trade unions and CLPs, is far more critical and watchful than it has
been in the past. It is even more censorious and “waiting on
results” than the attitude of the workers in 1945. Then, on the
basis of the new upsurge in production and of the nationalisations,
the radicalisations of the working class was held in check. Now, on
the new historical scale, events national and international will be
piling one upon another, resulting in the radicalisation of the
working class. If the beginning of the process of change in the
consciousness of the advanced labour workers has begun even under the
present conditions, a new impetus will take place with a Labour
government which does not deliver the goods. The process of
radicalisation, of the hardening of the opposition of the flabby
“lefts” in Parliament, and within even the top leadership of the
trade unions, will proceed not in the guarded and polite tea-table
manners of the recent period, but of open and harsh opposition to the
measures of the government.

This
will of course be dependent on the economic and world situation. But
the present curve of upward development within the framework of the
world upswing will not last more than a few years, and will be
followed at best by a recession within this broad framework.

The Tories’
dilemma

What
is interesting at the same time is to observe the process in the
Conservative Party. From having been basically the party of big
business—but with the top leadership under the control of the
patricians, it has become the party of big business now, even so far
as the selection of the top leadership is concerned. Heath is the
personification of the British bourgeoisie. His mediocrity, his
repellent image (which the mass media is trying to refurbish), his
lack of impact—all this is a reflection of the bourgeoisie itself
at the present period: a mirror which, of course, the bourgeoisie
regards with distaste. In actual practice, while making a great deal
of noise, the Conservative Party has in reality nothing to “oppose”.
The Labour government has faithfully, if clumsily and stupidly,
carried out the dictates of the capitalist class—much more
effectively than a Conservative government could have done under the
same conditions. This has put the Conservatives in rather an
embarrassing position.

The
Conservative victories at the by-elections and the council elections
have been by default of the Labour voters, rather than by enthusiasm
for the Tory Party. Basically, the programme of the Conservative
Party is no different to that of the Labour leaders—with the
difference that against the mass working class opposition they would
find it difficult to apply. Any attempt on their part to carry
through measures against the interests of the working class, in the
teeth of the opposition of the labour movement, would provoke
industrial upheavals, even possibly a new general strike.

But
with the weakened condition of Britain, a new general strike would
have far more catastrophic consequences economically, politically and
socially than the general strike in France. With a new generation and
with an enormously strengthened working class, its results would be
entirely different from the general strike of 1926, Moreover, the
white-collar workers now have an entirely different attitude than
they had pre-war. Today, the bourgeoisie cannot even rely on the sons
and daughters of the middle class and the ruling class themselves.
This is evidenced by the radicalisation among the students, which is
as yet in its early beginnings.

That
is why the strategists of capital are as yet uncertain in which
direction to turn. In the event of a Tory government, the masses in
the trade union and labour movement will swing massively to the left.
To maintain its position, the leadership will be compelled to put
forward demagogic slogans, which in turn would feed the movement of
the masses. The organisational differentiation within the labour
movement might thereby be delayed to some extent: but only by
engendering a wave of mass struggles against the Tory government
which would threaten to overwhelm them.

A
new thirteen-year period of Tory rule seems to be ruled out by the
situation on a world scale and the relationship of classes at home.
Thus, a Tory government would not be long lasting but would bring to
power a Labour government under aroused mass pressure from its
inception. Meanwhile, from the point of view of later developments,
the Powell-Sandys wing of the Tory Party is being kept in being, as a
reserve weapon. While not taking seriously most of the quaint and
outmoded economic theories of Powell, at the same time the colour
question is being kept in reserve, for use in the event of social
crisis.

The
tendency will be under these circumstances for the Labour workers to
move to the left and sections of the politically backward middle
class elements who support the Nabbaros, Sandys, Powells, etc.
to move to the right. From the settled and tranquil party of big
business which the Tories have been for generations, they will become
instead a party of upheaval and splits. The support or the alleged
support which Powell received from a small section of the
dissatisfied and economically threatened sections, traditionally
Labour, in their attitude, such as the dockers and Smithfield
porters, has been extensively exaggerated and puffed up by the press
and other means of moulding public opinion.

Undoubtedly,
many of the middle class layers that voted Labour in disappointment
and frustration will swing back to the Tories. At a later stage, it
is on this layer, that a strong right-wing Bonapartist or even
fascist movement will be constructed. The Tory Party will find itself
split from top to bottom in the social upheavals which lie ahead.

The crisis of
the “Communist” Party

The
Communist Party in the post-war period has suffered one staggering
blow after the other. Dependent on Moscow in the past, the
reverberations of events in the Stalinist states have inevitably
reflected themselves in their ranks and at each stage caused a
crisis. With the complete lack of theory, with the cynicism of the
leadership, and degeneration of the organisation on Stalinist lines,
they have been subject like all the Communist Parties in the
metropolitan countries, to the pressure of capitalism, caused by the
lengthy economic upswing which has taken place in the post-war
period. Their influence among the masses has dropped even from the
small share they had in pre-war days. Even in the trade unions,
individual militants have secured support as militants not because
of, but in spite of being members of the Communist Party. The latest
events in Czechoslovakia have again provoked a crisis within their
ranks.

Meanwhile,
the entire basis of the party has been changed. Only a small
percentage remain from the pre-war period or even the immediate
post-war period. The average member of the Communist Party today has
no greater understanding of the basic socialist theory than the
average active member of the Labour Party. Consequently, it has been
possible to swing the membership on to a nationalist policy. The
events in Czechoslovakia have pushed the Communist Party leadership
even further on this road. No longer under the direct domination of
Moscow, with the leadership cynical and sceptical of the power of the
working class, they have inevitably fallen victim to the disease of
reformism. More skilled at deceiving the workers in their ranks than
the Labour leaders, nevertheless, their association with Moscow, at
this stage, has repelled the broad masses. Despite the enormous
opportunities given by the crimes of the Labour government, they have
been completely incapable of making appreciable gains.

At
the same time, no longer having an anchor in the fanatical adherence
of the membership to what they considered was the Soviet Union, (in
reality the Soviet bureaucracy), they have been cast adrift. From
being a powerful means of maintaining the control of the
rank-and-file, the link with Moscow has become an embarrassment. This
in its turn means that the membership can no longer be rigidly held
in control by the leadership, but is subject to the blows of events
at home and abroad. They are far more subject to crisis than the
Stalinist parties were in the past. No longer is the CP sheltered by
the wall of blood created by Stalin from the ideas of Marxism, and
from the wind of events. The leadership, purely empirical, is now at
the mercy of events. The profound dissatisfaction within the
rank-and-file at the antics of the so-called “communists” in the
West, and of the leadership at home, finds periodical outlet in the
crises which beset the Party.

It
is to be noticed that the swing to the left on the part of the
delegates to the Labour Party conference (despite the fact that the
vote for the economic resolution referred to above, far to the left
of the propaganda of the so-called Communist Party, received scant
mention in the pages of the Morning Star
or the other journals of the CP) nevertheless, forced a change of
course on the part of the Communist Party leadership. In articles, in
material on the front page, and in the headlines, for the first time
in many years the idea of “socialism” as a solution to the
problems of the British workers is being put forward prominently not
as a far off, remote and impractical solution, but as an immediate
policy. This in turn will produce further contradictions within the
ranks of the Communist Party laying them open to the genuine ideas of
Marxism.

The mass left
wing

During
the whole of the post-war period, the “left” within the Labour
Party has remained politically muddled and organisationally chaotic.
There has been nothing like the left wing which sprang into existence
after the First World War and during the first and second Labour
governments. It has remained amorphous and rather a potential force
than an organised one. The Bevanite movement, even at its height in
the last period of the Labour government (1945-51) and during the
years of opposition to the Tories, never reached the stage of
organisation or influence of the Clydeside left, or of the ILP. It
remained essentially as only a deeper shade of pink reformism than
that of the official leadership. At no time did it have any mass
influence within the rank-and-file of the trade unions. Even in the
constituencies, in which it had the undoubted support of a big
section, if not the majority, its conclusions and ideas remained
suspended in mid-air.

Even
at this stage, what is significant about the nascent left is the
support which it is receiving in the trade union movement and having
its reflection even in the top delegations of the really mass unions,
of the T&GWU and AEF, the NUR and many others; this when the
process of the development of the left wing is really in its early
beginnings. Before there can be an organised left there has to be a
movement of the masses themselves. All the seedbeds of revolt have
been sown in the last period. But it required some disturbance for
the shoots to break through over the protective shield established by
the Transport House [Note: the then Labour Party headquarters]
bureaucracy. How this comes about is, of course, dependent on the
development of events nationally and internationally. Big strike
movements, and any attempt to hold back living standards, an attempt
to force through and apply anti-trade union legislation, could
provoke a mass movement of revolt in the constituencies and the trade
union branches.

Movements
from below in their turn will provoke corresponding postures on the
part of the trade union leaders and MPs, and in their turn be
reflected in the rank-and file. From one event or another there will
be a mass growth of the left. It may be that the LP itself will move
to the left, and will be transformed into a centrist organisation,
under the hammer blows of events. In this case the extreme right
would be vomited forth with the same effect as the neo-socialist
split in the Socialist Party in France in 1934-35. Here it is to be
observed that the movement of the advanced elements is not the same
thing as the movement of the masses, though they are linked together.
At the present time, the bulk of the sincere lefts in the trade
unions and LP are unclear as to how to achieve the aim of socialism.
The limitations of the left were clearly expressed at the conference,
which remains as a barometer of the processes within the movement.

The
process, however, is a contradictory one. In many ways the
consciousness of the organised active masses is on a higher level
than ever before in history. But for this movement of opinion to be
translated into organised reality requires a movement of the masses
themselves.

The
failure of the policies of MacDonald in 1929-31 in relation to the
situation which existed nationally and internationally produced its
organised reflection in the movement of the ILP towards Marxism. The
fact that it remained in mid-way position is not a question that
needs explaining here, as it has been dealt with elsewhere.

It
may require the experience of a new Labour government under really
adverse conditions to drive home the lessons to the rank-and-file. As
explained previously, these considerations play a role also in the
thinking and calculations of the advisers of the ruling class, from
their point of view. But whichever way events unfold, there is the
inevitability of the rise of a mass, organised left wing.

The
whole situation is such that there can be abrupt turns not only
internationally but nationally. The mass radicalisation in France
which was precipitated into the May 1968 occupation of the factories
is an indication of this process. The molecular process of change and
radicalisation in the thinking of the masses is at present developing
in all the main capitalist countries. It is in the tradition of the
British movement to transform its organisations themselves, as
evidenced by the processes in the AEF, NGA, T&GWU, NUM, and
tomorrow the MGWU. But a hurricane of mass feeling and activity can
suddenly change the outlook in the mass organisations. The process in
its early beginnings can suddenly burst forth into active involvement
of the workers themselves.

It
is among the youth that the ideas of Marxism will gain the firmest
and most enthusiastic adherents. The Labour Party Young Socialists
are more and more accepting these ideas. But the young workers,
having been brought to understand the basic ideas of Marxism, must
carry these ideas into the adult parties, into the trade unions, into
the wards and into the factory committees. From month to month, from
week to week, from day to day, they will receive an ever more
sympathetic hearing, as the forum of the LP conference demonstrates.

Those
tendencies which have been empirically impressed by the episodic
movements outside of the organised labour movement will end up as
they began, on an opportunist basis. The student movement is in
itself a reflection of the deep-going processes taking place within
society. It is an indication of the radical upheavals that will
affect not only the middle class, but the working class in the next
stage.

But
unless the best of the students can be convinced of the need to work
in the mass organisations, their present radicalisation will merely
be a phase of youthful “socialist measles”. They will tend to be
absorbed into the milieu of middle class life. The CND, which had
many links with the labour movement, but which, nevertheless,
remained separate, but without clear and distinguishable aims,
inevitably fizzled out. The demonstrations on Vietnam and like
causes, while attracting the radical elements among the students and
middle class, and even sections of the younger workers, will suffer a
like fate. Nothing can replace the elementary movements of the masses
in defence of their standards and even for a change of society. Of
course, great events abroad would have their echo and would even
provoke explosions among the masses in Britain.

But
there are no short cuts to the achievement of the socialist aims
embodied in the labour movement. The Marxists must absorb the lessons
of the past and apply these ideas to the situation as it exists and
as it is unfolding.